= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CuSithBell comments on Build Small Skills in the Right Order - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (213)
I mean, your respective introspections regarding SilasBarta's mental state / processes.
Oh, I see. No, I just intended to express the by-now banal notion that people in general aren't good at knowing why they think what they think.
...as far as I am aware.
So wait, you can know better what I was thinking, but I can't know better what lukeprog was thinking?
Anyway, here are your links of the same thing going on:
1: Lukeprog metaphorically kicking and screaming when asked for clarification of a citation, then insulting those who would have found the answer "I just read the abstract" helpful.
2: Lukeprog directing me on fruitless searches of his citations, then, when that doesn't work, equating his intuition with what his sources say, all to avoid admitting there might be some dissonance between his recommendations that he didn't realize.
I didn't want to make this a big referendum about a bad habit of Luke's -- I deleted mention of earlier occurrences from earlier posts so as not to widen the confrontation -- but you asked for examples from the past.
I read the threads you linked, and my own assessment of them does not accord with yours. (Perhaps you will not be surprised by this.) This whole exchange and the ones you link have a tone I think of as "typical SilasBarta": uncharitable and far more argumentative than necessary. It frustrates me because I find it tiring and unpleasant to read and/or participate in, and yet I recognize that you often have good insights that I will have to forgo if I want to avoid dealing with your style of interaction.
You don't have to trust my judgment on this. See Tyrrell's input on the first and warpforge's in the second. Whatever I did or didn't say, whatever tone I should or shouldn't have been using, it should be clear that lukeprog's response in both cases was to give knowably unhelpful replies and divert attention away from the proffered shortcoming, just as he's doing here, which should satisfy your curiosity about why I would read him that way here.
If you really do think it's okay to reply as lukeprog did here, when I would think you'd be the first person to criticize the tone of "okay I'll fix it but I'm going to mock your concern", then I'll be sure to keep that in mind for my future interaction with you -- but I doubt you actually think that.
Indeed. I asked a simple question about the sources and didn't get the simple answer until ~5 rounds of back-and-forth -- that was way too much argumentativeness for what I was asking for! I'm glad you're right on top criticizing Luke for that instead of me!
This is precisely the interpretation of lukeprog's comments that I do not share, especially the bolded text.
Actually you got the answers directly [1][2], and, if the timestamps are to be trusted, before any back-and-forth (as JGWeissman noted).
So we're at least agreed on the replies being knowably unhelpful then?
I didn't get clarification that lukeprog was basing his characterization solely on the first two pages, and didn't actually read the papers himself, until after the back-and-forth. So JGWeissman is wrong, I just didn't bother re-re-explaining stuff to him at the time.
That one is trickier. It depends on what you meant by "knowably", that is, knowable by who in what state of information.
I was going to try to dissect this, but rather than getting into the weeds of that exchange, I'll just say that to me your position seems to be predicated on assertions you take to be obviously factual but that I believe to be uncharitable inferences on your part. At this point my endurance is giving out, so I'm going to leave the question of exactly which assertions I'm talking about as an exercise for the reader.
I wouldn't actually be the first person to criticize that tone; I care much more about the effort to make the fix than the mockery. I'd rather the mockery not happen, of course, but for example, if you were to tell me, "I'm sorry that you find reading my arguments hurts your fee-fees, poor blossom; in the future I'll make an effort to question my inferences about other people's motivations and states of mind," I'd totally let the former part of the statement slide in light of the latter.
No, I can't. Hence my need to update. Thanks for the links, by the way.